cyprusgrump wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:If you study the history and workings of the body known as the 'Tote' in the UK, (the 'Horserace Totalisator Board' in full), you will see that a state-owned gambling company can be successful. It was set up in 1928 by Winston Churchill to operate tote betting at racecourses, and in 1972 it also moved into running a chain of betting shops. It did both very successfully, and I worked in their betting shops for a while and saw that it was every bit as successful as its private sector competitors. It was sold to a private company in 2011.
You can guarantee success if you make the rules and skew them in your favour...
You have to question though if it offered the very best deal for punters or if an 'open market' with a level playing field would have been better...?
You also have to question why the government were so keen to get rid of it for (if I remember rightly) quite a small return if it was so successful...?
With the betting shops there was an open market, the Tote was just one chain of shops among several. At racecourses, you could always bet with the bookmakers. The fact remains that it was a success, and in my opinion the government was very shortsighted in selling what was effectively a goose that lay the golden eggs.
I'm not an expert on gambling to be honest....
But I thought The Tote had a monopoly on some bit of the market...?
I know a fair bit about it, partially thanks to a misspent youth! The Tote had the monopoly on running totalisator betting at racecourses. However, in 1972 it made the bold step of building up a chain of betting shops as a normal competitor in a line of business that was entirely run by the private sector and without changing any of the rules - and succeeded.